When confronted with the option of centrist-liberalism (NDP which we should not confuse with a “socialist” party: it is a Tony Blair-ite/Clintonian “Third Way” party–the “socialism” of the NDP is tantamount to saying “hi” to an acquaintance in line behind you at Starbucks), a right-liberalism (the Liberals, of course) and another right-liberalism (the PC/Conservatives/Reform whose “right wing” credentials are equivalent to saying the exact same thing as the Liberals, but in front of a Tim Hortons), it is little surprise that no one voted. Oh, right, the “environmentalist” Green Party also ran some candidates as did the crazy Christian “family values” party. When there is no difference, all we have is emotive, passing preference: does Hudak’s voice upset you? Do you think McGuinty looks slimy? And who is that lady from Hamilton? A lady? No thanks, we’re liberals!

The question isn’t “Why didn’t you vote?” but, “Why did you vote?” The pathology is not found among those who opt-out, but among those who steadfastly believe that the choice between Coke, Pepsi and RC Cola is actually a choice–regardless of the label, it is still a painted, vacuum-sealed can of high fructose corn syrup, caramel colour, and caffein that you paid too much money for. To vote isn’t to vote for a party or a perspective or an ideology. It is to vote for the sake of voting. It is an attempt to construct a divide between those who are “pathetic” and those who are apathetic; between the good and the bad; between those who mindlessly do their duty and those who do not. Of course, we should note the homology between “duty” and “dootie”–voting in the present climate is equivalent to standing in line for a half hour and then shitting in a little, white cardboard box; that is, doing your duty while doing your dootie. The voter would rather will nothing than not will at all, to borrow from Nietzsche.

Sure, feel proud you cast your ballot; feel superior to me because I did not; and feel free to tell me that because I didn’t vote, I don’t get to complain. Just be rest assured that I’ll ignore you like I ignored the ballot box. If it is impractical to punch a liberal in the face–and, I repeat, there is no difference here between the Starbucks liberals and Tim Hortons liberals–I recommend you just ignore them.

While I didn’t vote for either of them, I’d like to thank David Remington (Liberal) for replying to my email within twenty-four hours and Doug Smyth (NDP) for replying to my email a few days after that. Unfortunately, neither of them convinced me that I should vote for them personally or for their parties more generally. This means that the haughty incumbent and libertarian nutjob, Scott Reid (Conservative, formally Canadian Alliance, formally Reform) didn’t bother to reply at all (maybe he was too busy setting up a witch-hunt of academics deemed to be insufficiently politically correct due to a lack of repeated demonstrations of unconditional support for Israel?), and neither did John Baranyi (Green), which is a shame because he runs a local company that produces, among other things, frozen vegan meals–a bit expensive, but fairly good–and the Green Party likely has the best platform for animals (even if it remains thoroughly welfarist).

With respect to the federal leaders, I only received a response from Brianne No-last-name, someone who does communications and media relations for the Green Party. She apologized that Elizabeth May could not respond personally, but she felt confident that her answers were the same as those that May would have given. Of all the replies (admittedly, a small sample!), hers was the most detailed, but it took the longest to arrive. But, in her defense, the Green Party general email account likely receives more correspondence than that of Scott Reid. Perhaps it was sufficient to convince me to vote Green, if not for Baranyi failing to reply to my questions. (Not that it would matter: the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives could run a scarecrow out here and still win; I leave it to the readership to determine if Scott Reid bears any resemblance to such a scarecrow.)

As everyone knows by now, the election concluded with mixed results: a Conservative/Reform majority and a strong mandate for the nominally social democratic NDP as official opposition. The extent to which the NDP surge is a result of a nascent social democratic sentiment as opposed to a protest against Bloq remains to be determined, although the Bloq, on the whole, had strong social democratic leanings prior to its internal combustion. The Quebec separatist party (the one with, in my view, the most intelligent leader) burned up, as did the Michael Ignatieff led Liberal Party. (I hereby retract my post from 2005 making fun of him and giving him the title of the Future Ruler of Canada, although it is now somewhat ironic given the outcome–it’d be nice of people stopped linking to it in comments to the Globe & Mail, CBC, Toronto Star, and National Post comments.) Don’t worry about Ignatieff as he has already secured a tenured position at the University of Toronto making him the academic with the shortest time on the job market in the history of the world: roughly twenty-four hours (sooner had he resigned the night of the election). Hopefully he’ll be sufficiently guilt-ridden that he’ll stop writing terrible books on why sometimes you just gotta torture the shit out of people in the name of human rights and invade countries leading to the direct and indirect deaths of hundreds of thousands in the name of humanitarianism and go back to writing fairly competent and interest books (such as his A Just Measure of Pain, which I often use in teaching–although my students are often extremely upset that Ignatieff didn’t do the research to find out what the game “rolly-polly” involved in mid-eighteen century British prisons).

Fortunately, post-secondary education is a matter of provincial responsibility and the federal government will not have much direct impact upon it in the next few years (unless they really mess with the transfer payments system). But, this means that universities will see fewer capital projects, such as the non-stop building of luxury apartments for undergraduates. On balance, this is a good thing. The already limited healthcare services we have in Canada will, no doubt, suffer. Prisons, the military, and big businesses (especially oil and banking) will be the big winners, and, to a lesser extent, rich Canadians. More rabid members of the Conservatives, those deriving from Reform roots, will no doubt push insane private members bills with the tacit support of the Prime Minister calling for the criminalization of abortion, the abolishing of gay marriage, and other social conservative classics.

This year, I’ve decided to ask each candidate (John Baranyi, Scott Reid, David Remington, Doug Smyth)and leader from the major parties (viz., Conservative, Green, Liberal, New Democratic) to explain to me why I should vote for them (or anyone at all). I’ve narrowed my issues down to four: animals, healthcare, environment, and post-secondary education. I prefaced my questions stating that sending party literature easily obtainable online would be deemed a non-response and indicative of them having no interest in communicating with potential constituents. I also asked them what they would do immediately (within one year) and within one term (i.e., four years) to make a significant difference in each of these areas.

I’m not confident that I will get a serious reply from a single candidate or leader–why should anyone expect a serious answer when the Prime Minister refuses to answer more than five questions a day? When the governing party refuses to attend all candidates meetings? When the leader of the Official Opposition reduces his campaign to the level of Facebook comments? When a party running a candidate in every riding is not permitted to participate in televised debates but a party only running candidates in a single province is? I’ll post replies (should I get any) as they arrive.

1. What will you do to concretely improve the lives of animals in Canada? Please do not answer with food or agricultural policy. I am not interested in what you will do for farmers or for low-income Canadians who do not have regular access to nutritional food; I am interested in what you will do for animals.
2. What will you do to concretely improve the healthcare system? That is, why would someone without regular access to a family doctor, dental services and supplemental health insurance deem your healthcare policy acceptable.
3. What will you do to concretely improve the post-secondary education system? That is, why should students, professors, and parents deem your education policy acceptable.
4. What will you do to concretely improve the condition of the environment? That is, what will you do to ensure that the air we breathe and the water we drink is cleaner one year and four years from now than it is at present.

I also sent the following question to local candidates:

A last question: having lived in Perth for six years now and seen two municipal, two provincial and two federal elections, why hasn’t a single candidate in any election ever come to my door asking for my support?

But whatever you do, vote. Voting’s how you make a statement about what sort of Canada you believe in and what kind of Canada you want to see.

Now, it is impossible to argue that I’m "anti-democratic".  It is quite the contrary: I like democracy so much and approve so highly of democracy that when I look at so-called democratic countries, I cringe in disbelief and I cry in disdain.  While I’m not a fan of smashing McDonald’s windows (this, afterall, implies a necessary recognizing of McDonald’s), I’ll nonetheless paraphrase the title of that Seattle documentary: this is not what democracy looks like!

While "the West", in general, is privileged enough to predominantly have countries that are on the "more" side of "more of less" when it comes to the spectrum of regimes, this in no way implies that one should be complacent and take what you’re given because, well, maybe it is better than anything else out there.  If we believe the rhetoric of complacent sub-urban liberals of "the Canadian blogosphere", we should be really happy that, although Canada is a sexist, racist, classist, oligarchic, anti-democratic country it is, by comparison, "the least" sexist, racist, classist, oligarchic, anti-democratic country.  Such a country is — obviously — still sexist, racist, classist, oligarchic and anti-democratic.  But, let’s be happy in our narrow sub-urban liberal anti-Americanism and say, "Well, at least we aren’t American!".

Yes, at least!

Returning to my quickly fading point, where did this idea come from that we have to vote — even throw away our vote of the Green Party — if we want to "make a statement"?  Or, maybe, you could throw away your vote on the Marxist-Leninist Party who still supports Stalin!  What a ridiculous idea!  What a great expression of your "vision" of the future!

Here’s how it is: I’m not voting tomorrow.  And, you know what, come January 24, 2006, I’ll still be entitled to complain all I want.  And, you know what else?  My so-called "non-participation" is a greater defense of democracy than your nihilistic opinion that only those who vote (in one way or another) have a stake in the future.

Meanwhile, the fringe parties, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, remain unable to push either of their agendas due to what is essential an issue of perception: the Bloc are, obviously, seperatists and the NDP, equally obviously, are communists.  Problem is, neither perception is true.  (Mind you, if you squint just the right way while looking at Layton, he’ll turn into Lenin.)  Both are, at the core, center-left parties with a sense of ‘the social’ approaching the question from, respectively, the perspective of Quebec and the perspective of Canada.  (As the most progressive province in Canada, the country could learn a lot from Quebec, thus I don’t see the perspectives as mutually exclusive.  This is a great feat by the Quebecois given that they are a dominated minority contained to a single region.)

The best one could hope for — and there are a few reasons one might hope for this — is that the NDP and the Bloc would form a coalition government.  Substantively, they agree on almost social and economic issues.  The only point of difference is ‘Canada first’ versus ‘Quebec first’.  But, as a region of Canada, it isn’t always clear how they are necessarily exclusive positions.  I’m in a minority of about a handful in English Canada who does not particularly care if the Bloc votes on the basis of what is good for Quebec.  In general, what appears to be good for Quebec — protection of minority rights, integration and training of immigrants, cultural projects, etc — is also good for Canada.

But this is all beside the point.  The real reason to ensure a coalition government is that we could, for the first time, have Co-Prime Ministers.  It would be quite funny, "The Co-Prime Ministers of Canada, Jack and Gilles".  (To those who don’t speak French, ‘Gilles’ sounds a lot like ‘Jills’ with a softer initial consonant.)  That’s right: Jack and Jill.  Hilarious!  Would destroy the symbolic structure of the country.

(Gilles Duceppe, by the way, was the only marginally interesting participant in the ‘debate’ last night.  His facial expressions are priceless.  On some idiotic question, "Would you allow a free vote on gay marriage?" he looked very shocked and confused and said, "We already did."  We certainly did.)

Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox & Addington
Riding Profile
Map
Results (The only significant result being that Scott Reid received more votes than all the other candidates combined.  But this is hardly surprising: a rotten pumpkin leftover from Hallowe’en could have won the riding if it ran for the Conservative Party.  I don’t mean to denigrate pumpkins, of course!)

Candidates
Jerry Ackerman, Canadian Action Party
Party
Phone: 613-375-8256

Helen Forsey, NDP
Riding Association
Party
Phone: 613-479-2453

Mike Nickerson, Green Party
Personal
Party

Ernest Rathwell, Esq., Marijuana Party
Personal
Party

Scott Reid, Reform Party (incumbent)
Personal
Riding Association
Party

Geoffrey ("Geoff") Turner, Liberal
Riding
Party
Phone: 613-302-8085

General
Elections Canada: The 39th General Election
Canada Votes 2006 (CBC)
Decision 2006 (Globe and Mail)
Election 2006: Christmas Election (Toronto Star)
Canada Votes (Ottawa Sun)
Decision Canada (Canada.com)

“A student got up and said: `If you love this country so much, why don’t you live here?’ And I thought … `Bingo!’ [At a Massey Lecture at the University of Toronto] I have spent my life worrying about other countries problems, now it’s time for me to worry about my own country’s problems [not specified]. The one burning thing I feel is that I do not want to be 65 [i.e., in seven years], sitting around saying `I bitched about Canadian politics and never bloody did anything about it,’ if you want to know what the bottom line is, that’s it. This is unlike anything I’ve ever done, I don’t know where it’s going; it may go nowhere. I’m not being coy or cute [he's biologically predisposed towards the opposite]… I’ve rolled the dice on the latter part of my career. There are no guarantees, no undertakings, no promises. You spend five years teaching kids how to take political responsibility [to his credit, he is a 'famous man' who does teach intro and survey courses] — it does cross your mind, what would it be like if you had to do it. The challenge is to fashion a new language of national unity [no examples; here, at least]. The thing I want to make very clear is that they ['senior Liberals' who invited him into the party] were not approaching me to start a conspiracy, or a plot. The party has had far too many of those. What happens in the fullness of time is not in my control. It’s not in my control. Yesterday, he stressed his support for Martin [outer conformity of Martin's authority is required for membership; upon his succession to the throne of the party, he purged those who refused to publicly accept this authority] and praised his accomplishments [???] during a difficult minority government. I wouldn’t be running if I didn’t feel the Prime Minister of Canada is doing the best job he can under very difficult circumstances. I’m succeeding a popular MP [Jean Augustine, a black Grenadan woman, whose race was made an issue by the Reform Party in the last election] , an MP who’s been an icon to her community, an MP with a tremendous rapport in her riding. Who the hell am I? That’s the Canada I believe in [referring to Augustine's success in Canada]. Her story is an inspiration to lots of communities.”

Were he to be elected, he’d have a hard time in question period. Ignatieff doesn’t handle questions from the floor well — questions suggest that he may not be the absolute authority on whatever topic he’s going on about. And this goes to my snide comment about his pre-disposition towards the opposite of cute and coy: he’s smug and arrogant. I recall listening to him speak a few years ago, around the time the United States invaded Iraq for the second time since 1990, he was giving a bullshit prize-lecture. One of those things with the name of some donor attached to it that was supposed to attract big names to the university so as to give the university press — and, of course, the people on this circuit have pre-packaged lectures. (We had Steve Pinker another year.) Anyway, he told us, “You see, I’m Canadian, but I live near Washington. I spend a lot of time there. Important people tell me stuff, because I’m also an important person. Because I’m an important person and I’ve been to Washington, I’m going to tell you backwater people, in the capital of Canada, how the world works.” And he did so: we must invade Iraq for the reasons that Bush gave us. Hardly compelling. He also said something about human rights. Something about invading Iraq and human rights. Anyway, at the end of his sermon, he entertained the possibility of comments. While recognizing that an auditorium is not necessarily conducive to discussion, Ignatieff decided to do his utmost to ensure no discussion could possibly take place. Rather than fielding a question and giving a reply, he had everyone with a question or comment raise their hand (or stand up?) and he chose five of them. Those five people got to say their bit — in about fifteen seconds — and then the next person was to speak. Once those five had spoken, he’d answer (or not as he saw fit) the comments. And then he would leave.

He’d make a good minister of citizenship, or something.

(Note: Ignatieff isn’t the first gimmick the Liberal Party has pulled out of its ass. Last election they got Ken Dryden, most famous for being an NHL goalie, to run. And at Paul Martin’s coronation, they had Bono perform — idiotic sunglasses and all. But the Liberals don’t have a monopoly on gimmicks: a few elections ago, Stockwell Day, a candidate in the Reform Party, put on a full-body wetsuit and road a jetski. The press had a field day. And, in the most recent Ontario election, the Conservative Party leader, Ernie Eves, claimed that the Liberal Party leader, Dalton McGuinty, ate kittens. Drama!)

More! The Ottawa Citizen reports that Ignatieff won the Liberal nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore only after his opponents were disqualified. The Citizen recounts the following story of

Ron Chyczij, president of the Liberal riding association, was told late Friday that anyone interested in the nomination had until 5 p.m. Saturday to file papers. But when he tried to deliver his nomination papers Saturday, the doors to the Liberal office were locked and those inside wouldn’t respond to his knocks on the door or phone calls. He finally slipped the papers under the door.

Take note: the local party president was unable to deliver papers to his own office! Apparently this is vengeance for Chyczij’s hostile take-over of the local riding association, which wanted to put forward a Ukranian candidate (i.e., himself) in a riding with “one of the largest Ukrainian-Canadian populations in Canada”. The Ukranians are upset that Ignatieff, who they think slandered them in Blood and Belonging will most likely be their MP.

More! Jack Layton says “Ignatieff, WTF? Not only did he usurp his nomination, but he doesn’t even live in Canada. Oh, and Ignatieff, Layton reminds us, is an imperialist (“lite”).

More! And local Liberals still don’t like Ignatieff’s nomination (the one that saw his two opponents disqualified thus preventing the question — and, I remind you, preventing the question is a favourite passtime for Michael when he’s in public). The Toronto Star reports that the “nomination” meeting last night at the ever-so-classy sounding Valhalla Inn in Etobicoke was protected by “police in bullet-proof vests“. The Ottawa Citizen’s version is much more subdued. For them, Ignatieff remains the “Harvard academic turned Liberal star”. Oh, and they mention people wearing those frightening Bush masks outside the meeting. The question, therefore, is whether the police were there to protect Ignatieff from protestors inside or outside the Liberal party?

More! Students says Ignatieff suffers from “John Kerry syndrome” and his “patrician demeanour” may not appeal to the “average voter”. Meanwhile, Ignatieff assures us that he’s “not naive as I look”. No word on the arrogance. Except from the student. Finally, from the same article, Ignatieff admits to rookie ministerial duties: “pledges to find a way to occasionally lecture at the university in some form should Liberals form a government and he be chosen for a cabinet post”.

More! Two days after the publication of an article in the Harvard Crimson, where Ignatieff said he would beg to be allowed back at Harvard should he not be elected (note: he’s already not been elected once and that hasn’t stopped him from taking the position anyway), Ignatieff changes tune in an interview with another paper, The Globe and Mail. Apparently he’s already become a politician: tell one story in one paper, tell a completely different story in another, and leave everyone else (or, at least, all of four Ignatieff-watchers) really, really confused. But then, maybe Ignatieff’s understanding of the “joke concept” is as good as his understanding of the “question and answer concept”. But, again, Ignatieff is the sort of person who writes, “I have reasons to take the Ukraine seriously indeed. But, to be honest, I’m having trouble. Ukrainian independence conjures up images of peasant embroidered shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony Cossacks in cloaks and boots . . .” (in Blood and Belonging) and then says, “What? I love Ukranians? Anyone who was read my book can see I love Ukranians.” Another joke, no doubt. The Ukranians in his ridings, especially those who weren’t allowed to seek the Liberal candidacy in opposition to him, are certainly not laughing. I, however, am laughing — at Ignatieff.

More! Le Devoir compares Ignatieff to another annoying pop-philosopher (and, no, I don’t mean Mark Kingwell): Bernard-Henri Lévy, “C’est un peu le Bernard-Henri Lévy du Canada anglais : un intellectuel flamboyant doté d’un statut de clébrité.” For those who don’t read French well, Le Devoir says that Ignatieff i the “Bernard-Henri Lévy of English Canada”. They might be on to something: both pompous, both uninteresting, and both like to speak as though they have a direct connection to the truth. And, I don’t like either of them. My friend, Asad, has some more to say on this.

More! Failed (and righfully so) “intellectual”, Robert Sibley, manages to have a two-part feature on Ignatieff in this week’s “The Citizen’s Weekly” in the Ottawa Citizen. (It remains unclear to me how a single article in a single issue can be construed as having a distinct “Part 1” and “Part 2” — but then, I’m not a “Senior Editorial Writer”. And we know he’s a failed intellectual because he prefaces his much-too-long matinee feature on Ignatieff with a quote from Plato’s Republic. It’s a newspaper, dumbass.) Rob reveals his fascist desire to eradict people he doesn’t like (for instance, Ukranians) by stating “There’s nothing in Blood & Belonging that can be construed as “disdainful” of Ukrainians.” Hurry up before the Citizen removes the article (note: singular) from their online site. For a large newspaper that wishes it were important, it really takes content offline quickly. Too bad they don’t treat their “Senior Editorial Writers” in a similar manner.

More! Ignatieff’s lecture (and I stress the variety of meanings the word has) to the convention that crowned Paul Martin as current ruler of Canada. And, one of the original predictions of Ignatieff’s dream of ruling a country. And another. One wonders: what the hell is it with hack Maclean’s columnists and Ignatieff?

More! “Integrity. Commitment. Service” — the OFFICIAL Michael Ignatieff website. Statement by Ignatieff on his candidacy.

More! Detailed and extensive commentary on the Ignatieff Affair.

More! It’s not nice to be treated as something other than a human being. Ignatieff tells us so, “Look, I’m a human being.” That means he has rights: a self-organizing campaign, not having to do any work, having nominations handed to you, only being exposed to people who like you, not hearing criticism, etc. (People who do the opposite should be deprived of sleep and food, forced to listen to loud noises and have hoods put over their heads.) According to Ignatieff, it is much nicer to be in a room of chosen people — chosen, that is, to be there. By that he means, ‘None of those pesky Ukranians’. The Toronto Star reports: “In the midst of the imbroglio over his nomination as Liberal candidate in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ignatieff, 58, walked into a room of supporters of Jean Augustine, the MP who bowed out on his behalf, and they rose to give him a standing ovation.” It’s also nice, Ignatieff tells us, to not have to do any work at all — unlike his rivals in the Liberal Party: “The team put itself together,” he said. “One of the wonderful things about this experience is that I don’t think I made a phone call.”